Nothing but Nets

The 65% Rule

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Today's Houston Chronicle takes issue with what isn't included in the 65% Rule. This follows a plethora of articles and and editorials questioning the wisdom of the 65% Rule, including an editorial in last Sunday's Seattle Times entitled "65-percent solution is 100-percent wrong," and a January 22 article in the Akron Beacon entitled "65-Percent Plan Fails Basic Math."

I have blogged extensively about the inherent problems with the definition of "in the classroom" which is at the heart of the 65% Rule, including the fact that but librarians, guidance counselors, food service workers and school bus drivers are not included in the definition, and the Standard & Poors study that found no empirical evidence to support implementation of the 65% Rule. However, the most obvious flaw in the rigid application of the definition currently proposed is established by this example, previously contained in my September 16, 2005, post:

As an example, transportation costs are excluded from the NCES definition. The Equity Center makes the following analysis:

For a timely example, consider the impact of a $2 per gallon increase in the cost of diesel fuel for school buses. Not only must a district find away to come up with the extra $2 in actual cost (35% portion), it must also find an additional $4 to spend in the 65% portion to maintain the required ratio, for a total increase of $6 per gallon. That would make $3.00/gallon diesel actually cost a total of $9.00, once the 65/35 ratio is maintained. This illustrates the inherent problem with restricting expenditures to a given ratio—a problem that certainly needs to be addressed.

Friday, January 06, 2006

The Chronicle's Rick Casey has an excellent editorial in today's paper concerning the flaws in the "65% Solution." As frequent readers of this blog know, I have expressed my reservations not with the concept of this plan, but rather with the manner in which it is proposed to be implemented. You can read my previous posts here, and Mr. Casey's column (including quotes from Spring Branch's own Superintendent Dr. Klussmann) here and below.

_________________________________________________

Jan. 5, 2006, 10:59PM

Gov. Perry's 65 percent delusion

By RICK CASEYCopyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

STATE education officials are busy figuring out the details of implementing Gov. Rick Perry's executive order that 65 percent of public school expenditures go to classroom instruction.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Today's New York Times reports on the "65% Solution." While the article offers no new information, it provides a concise examination of this issue discussed frequently on this blog (see prior posts here. As I have previously stated, and as the NY Times seems to suggest, the concept is not a bad one, but rather, it is the implementation through a highly restrictive definition of "in the classroom" that is problematic.

The article begins by explaining the source of the "Solution" - the "First Class Education" group and it's concept to compel school districts to spend at least 65 percent of their operating budgets on classroom instruction. The article then discusses the group's founder, Tim Mooney, a Republican political consultant from Arizona. While Mr. Mooney's idea sounds good at first, as I have previously written, and as the NY Times recognizes,

Part of the problem lies in definitions, the critics say. Athletics counts as a classroom activity, including coaches' salaries, but librarians, guidance counselors, food service workers and school bus drivers do not, under guidelines created by the National Center for Education Statistics, a branch of the federal Department of Education.

The NY Times then picks up on one of my prior posts discussing The Austin American-Statesman's August 30, 2005, article concerning a memo from First Class Education listed a series of political benefits that would result from getting the 65 percent solution on the ballot. Among them, the newspaper reported, was that it would create divisions between teachers and administrators within education unions and that it would give Republicans greater credibility on public education issues, thus making it more likely that voters would support Republicans who are pushing for school vouchers and charter schools.

The NY Times quotes Mr. Mooney as saying that he wrote the memo two years ago, before the organization was founded, and that it was intended for Republican legislators. Its guiding principle was simple, he said: "When politicians do popular things, it makes them more popular."

Friday, December 02, 2005

Last week, Standard & Poors (S&P) School Matters released a very informative report entitled The Issues and Implications of the "65 Percent Solution" (.pdf). S&P investigated to determine whether there is "emperical evidence that allocating more money to instruction will necessarily result in higher student achievement." To make this determination, S&P studied academic achievement data from the nine states (including Texas) that are considering implementing the 65% solution. (See my prior posts on this topic here).

The executive summary of S&P's findings state:

Standard & Poor’s analysis of district level spending and student achievement data in the states that are currently considering a 65 Percent Solution reveals that higher instructional spending allocations are not consistently linked to higher achievement levels. This does not mean that how districts spend their money does not matter; in fact, allocating more money to instruction is a laudable goal. However, mandating a specific spending allocation is not likely to provide a “silver bullet” solution to raising student achievement. The wide range in districts’ academic proficiency rates at any given spending allocation suggests that the specific ways that school districts use their instructional dollars may have as much, if not more, of an impact on student achievement as the percentage of dollars spent in the classroom. . . . Standard & Poor’s analysis of data in nine states that are currently considering instituting a 65 Percent Solutionshows no significant positive correlation between the percentage of funds that districts spend on instructionand the percentage of students who score proficient or higher on state reading and math tests.

The scatterplot (.jpg) at the top of this post illustrates that in Texas, the relationship between the percentage that districts allocate to instruction and the percentage of students scoring proficient or above on state reading and math tests was statistically insignificant.

Monday, October 31, 2005

In my previous posts on the 65% Rule, I have noted that the definition of "in the classroom" being used by the groups advancing this concept was created by the NCES in 1980 and has not been updated since. Among the expenses not included in the Rule are high school principals.

In discussing this recently with one of the legislators who represents Spring Branch, he stated that having a building principal and grade level principals for each grade was unnecessary and supported the NCES exclusion of these administrators. It occurred to me that most people including many of our elected state legislators don't understand the difficult job these people do every day. One of our principals has provided me with the information below which I believe clearly shows the importance of these education leaders to the success of our students, and why it is foolish not to include them (as well as counselors, nurses, etc.) in the definition of classroom expenditures.

__________________________________

SBISD high schools are staffed with 1 administrative assistant principal, and 4 grade level assistant principals. On average, high school administrators have 2-3 late nights per week.

Day to day responsibilities include:

1. Minimum of 2.5 hours per day of direct student supervision before school, during lunches, and after school.

2. Discipline management for an average of 500 students per grade level. this includes parent conferences, referring students to attendance officers, attending meetings required by state and federal guidelines such as STAT, 504, LPAC and ARD meetings.

I received a tremendously informative email today from Sandra Poth, the Director of Testing and Evaluation for San Antonio's Northside ISD. Rather than paraphrase, her entire comment is below.

It is no wonder that the 65% Rule doesn't work as a template when its basis is a definition developed 25 years ago. In 1980 Paul Allen and Bill Gates were still working to develop what would become DOS. Wordperfect 1.0 and the Commodore 64 were still 2 years from being launched, Dell was still 4 years from being formed, Microsoft's IPO is still 12 years away, and Time pronounced the coming Jetsons-esqueRobot Revolution. If we're going to use that timeframe to define the educational future of our 21st century students, Thomas Friedman will be proven right and India, China, and many other countries that value education will far surpass us within our children's lifetimes.

We should neither accept nor tolerate buzzwords and catch phrases in place of thoughtful decision making.

Monday, October 17, 2005

I am an avid reader of Joe Smith’s writing on texasisd.com. He has had some terrific legislative insight during the past year. I have corresponded with him on several items most recently concerning the 65% Rule.
Mr. Smith has put together an incredible resource library on the 65% Rule, and I am flattered that he has included my posts on this topic among the materials. To access the resource library, click here. He has additional valuable comments today here.

A solution to a bad assumption is a waste of time. The real issue in “the 65% solution” is not about how to improve educational opportunity for Texas Students, but how to increase classroom spending in Texas by $1.296 billion a year without a tax increase.This is a proposed 4.6% increase to classroom spending based on the proposed definitions.Sounds like an easy sell to taxpayers.You could accomplish the same thing by cutting transportation, food service, air conditioning, custodial staff (teachers clean rooms) and numerous other items that may not directly impact instruction.

Friday, September 16, 2005

The Texas Equity Center has released a brilliant report that discusses the problems with the Governor Perry's Executive Order that requires school districts to allocate 65% of their revenue for "direct classroom expenditures."

While I think there is no debate that the maximum dollars possible should be directed to the classroom, you can read my prior posts here, here, here, and here about the problems I perceive with this mandate.

The Equity Center's report accurately states that this Executive Order, if implemented using the National Center for Education Statistics' definition of "direct classroom expenditures," amounts to the largest unfunded mandate in Texas history.

As an example, transportation costs are excluded from the NCES definition. The Equity Center makes the following analysis:

For a timely example, consider the impact of a $2 per gallon increase in the cost of diesel fuel for school buses. Not only must a district find away to come up with the extra $2 in actual cost (35% portion), it must also find an additional $4 to spend in the 65% portion to maintain the required ratio, for a total increase of $6 per gallon. That would make $3.00/gallon diesel actually cost a total of $9.00, once the 65/35 ratio is maintained. This illustrates the inherent problem with restricting expenditures to a given ratio—a problem that certainly needs to be addressed.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Today's Austin American Statesman has an investigative report on the little-known group, First Class Education, which has been pushing the requirement that all school districts devote 65% of their budgets in the classroom. I found the following portion of the article very disturbing:

A First Class Education memo obtained by the Austin American-Statesman lists a series of "political benefits" of putting the 65 percent plan on the ballot. The memo says the plan will create divisions within education unions as dollars flow from administrators to teachers, and it says the plan will divert dollars away from other political goals of the "education establishment."

Citing voter trends, it also says the plan can help build support for voucher and charter school proposals, which critics say take money away from public schools.

"Women in particular want public education fixed, not replaced," it says. "Once additional fixing and funding of public education can be achieved via the First Class Education proposal, targeted segments of voters may be more greatly predisposed to supporting voucher and charter school proposals, as Republicans address the voting public with greater credibility on public education issues."

If this is indeed the true motivation for implementing this Rule, this represents a significant attempt to erode confidence in the public school system on a national scale. Starving public education in order to promote vouchers and charter schools is bad public policy. This plan will only serve to hurt the children of Texas and the future of our great State.

As I have previously written, the problem with this Rule is in the definition of "in the classroom." Gov. Perry’s Executive Order refers to the definition used by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). Under their definition, the following would NOT be included in the calculation of 65%: Administration, Plant Operations & Maintenance, Food Services, Transportation, Instructional Support, including Librarians, Teacher Training and Curriculum, Student Support, including nurses and counselors.

Spring Branch currently spends 62.3% on "in the classroom" expenses using the NCES definition. Assuming no additional revenue (i.e., no new taxes or funds from the State), in order to get to 65%, we would have to reduce the excluded items by 7.3%.

What is especially difficult in considering this type of reduction is that many of the expenses that would be excluded are unfunded mandates by the State. Each of the following unfunded mandate is good policy, but is, nonetheless unfunded by the State and excluded from the NCES definition of "in the classroom:"

1. Counselors: A school district with 500 or more students enrolled in elementary school grades shall employ a counselor certified under the rules of the State Board for Educator Certification for each elementary school in the district. A school district shall employ at least one counselor for every 500 elementary school students in the district. Texas Education Code §33.002.

2. Staff Development: The staff development provided by a school district must be: (1) conducted in accordance with standards developed by the district; and (2) designed to improve education in the district. Texas Education Code § 21.451. Districts are required to budget adequate time and financial resources to support a comprehensive staff development program that promotes learning and collaborating with colleagues, reflects best practices, and is guided by the campus improvement plan developed through the site-based decision-making process. 19 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §153.1011.

3. Librarians: The Texas State Library and Archives Commission, in consultation with the State Board of Education, shall adopt standards for school library services. A school district shall consider the standards in developing, implementing, or expanding library services. Texas Education Code §33.021. School districts are required to comply with the state mandated minimum salary schedule that applies to the following district employees: teachers, librarians, full-time counselors, and full-time nurses. Texas Education Code § 21.402.

4. Transporation: School buses shall be used for the transportation of students to and from schools on routes having 10 or more students who live more than two miles from their campus of regular attendance or who live in a designated hazardous area within two miles from their campus of regular attendance. Texas Education Code §34.003.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

“Ours is the party that challenges the soft bigotry of low expectations, that worked to stop the practice of just shuffling kids through school, grade after grade, without them being able to read and write. Ours is the party that set high standards, believes in local control of schools, and insists that every child learn to read and write, so no child is left behind in America.”President Bush – 2005 President's Dinner

The 2004 National Republican Party Platform stated: “Since over 90 percent of public school funding is state and local, not federal, it is obvious that state and local governments must assume most of the responsibility to improve the schools, and the role of the federal government must be limited as we return control to parents, teachers, and local school boards.”

The 2004 Platform for the Republican Party of Texas echoed the importance of local control by stating clearly: “The Party supports the concept of choice in public education and believes that quality education is best achieved by encouraging of parental involvement, protecting of parental rights, and maximizing local control of public schools. . . . . The Party urges the Legislature to give full control of local school districts to those districts.”

So if my party, which now controls every level of State government, believes so strongly in local control, what’s the issue?

Despite these clear statements of the importance of local control, the Legislature attacked this principal throughout the regular and special sessions. These attacks included attempts to mandate (1) the school start date, (2) trustee election date, and (3) the 65% rule. The Legislature failed to pass these "reforms," but Governor Perry has, by executive order put the 65% rule in place.nbsp; Now, regardless of what the local community wants, the State will require that 65% of funds be spent "in the classroom" with "in the classroom" being defined not by local taxpayers and voters, but by the Texas Education Agency using a standard developed by the federal government.

While Commissioner Neeley has formed a task force including superintendents to define "in the classroom," she has indicated that she wants to stay close to the definition developed by the federal government.As I stated in a previous post, implementation of this rule will require the remaining 35% to cover Administration, Plant Operations & Maintenance, Food Services, Transportation, Instructional Support, including Librarians, Teacher Training and Curriculum, and Student Support, including nurses and counselors.This change amounts to an unfunded mandate for many of these items which school districts are required by law to provide.In Spring Branch, we currently spend 10% of our budget on facilities operation and maintenance, and 10% on Robin Hood/recapture.

I applaud the efforts of our leaders to improve the educational opportunities for the 4.4 million students in Texas, and education in Texas is moving in the right direction.Our Spring Branch school board’s recently adopted Core Commitments make it clear that we are committed to continuous improvement in our students’ education.As a member of the board, I favor accountability, transparency in education, and efficient use of tax dollars, and I fully believe that our district, operated locally, will achieve our goals and continue to do what is in the best interest of all of our students, taxpayers, and stakeholders.

If the stakeholders in Spring Branch want a post-Labor Day start date, November board elections, or the implementation of a 65% rule, it should be their decision, made and implemented locally.

It is time for local control as a core value to be more than words.Otherwise, parents, taxpayers, and voters will continue to move further away from the people who decide how their neighborhood schools will educate their children.